I think hunting is a great thing as long as there is a viable use for the animal. The less waste the better. It can also be useful when trying to control a population.

I am all for hunting if it is for food and not sport.

I think that hunting is an ego thing and a way to feel superior to animals that have no way to protect themselves against the human species with high powered guns.Now there is professional trackers that find the animal and then the hunters shoots it.What sort of sporting chance does the animal have?To me it is not at all macho to hunt animals.We ,as a society grow domesticated animals for food,thus hunting is unnecessary for most.

I live in Western Washington State, but I grew up in Chicago. I did not grow up knowing hunters much (although occaisionally when I was a little girl, my father went out hunting rabits, and I now know that they were draining in my basement sometimes and I was unawares). Despite much history with hunters, I endorse them and think it is a better way to live. To kill you meat when it had eyes, and looked at you, seems like a much more courageous thing than to think that "meat" = stuff in styrofoam with Saran Wrap around it. One of my friends is a hunter now in Western Washington, and I will admit that the best chili I ever tasted was made with his veal! Have also had carribou jerky from another friend. So...I am not sure that I myself could shoot a fluffy white-tail, however I don't hassle those that do. There is nothing more ethical about having somebody kill my meat FOR me.

In nature animals hunt purely out of the need for food not for sport.

Hunting is one of the methods of control of an animal specis. Buffalo are now hunted as a method of culling out the herd (less desired/weaker ones). If this were not done, there would be too many buffalo if they were allow to reproduce at will. Deer are also hunted for this purpose but in some areas there are too many because they ruin property and constantly get hit by cars. More need to be culled out in these areas. Man hunted animals for food from the beginning just as they hunted each other. Hopefully the hunting for sport results in the animal being used for food. My son hunts animals for sport and the meat is eaten by his family and others. His polar bear was eated by the natives.

The short answer is that hunting is wrong whenever it is not necessary for self-preservation. There's overwhelming scientific evidence that nonhuman animals, from the simplest to the most complex, are capable of feeling pain. There is similar evidence that mammals and birds have rich emotional lives and inner worlds, and can form deep relationships with each other, and, in some species, with humans. Finally, some problem solving behaviours observed in primates, crows and ravens, some other mammals, and even some species of spider can only be explained in terms of analytical reasoning capability and abstract thinking. There is no legitimate basis on which to proclaim any real distinction between humans and nonhuman animals. There is only a difference in degree, not in kind, when it comes to their mental capabilities. Despite our efforts, science has increasingly found no uniquely human mental quality that all humans possess and no other nonhuman animals possess that allows us to say anything else. That said, the ethical and consistent thing would be to provide nonhumans with equal protection under the law with humans. Obviously their rights would be on par with infants and the severely mentally disabled, since that's the extent of their mental faculties (so no dogs voting!), but there isn't any justification for less protection under the law than that. Hunting for self-preservation - to avoid starvation and death - is amoral. It is what it is, a necessary evil. Nonhuman animals do it because they have to do so or else they'll die. A human in a similar situation would be similarly excused. But hunting for any other reason is the equivalent of murder in the first degree. It is premeditated, remorseless, murder committed simply out of the pleasure of ending another sentient being's life. There can be nothing more evil than that. Now, even though it would be pointless and evil, I could almost respect a man that hunted animals with his bare hands, or with a knife. But using guns (or bows and arrows back before guns) to kill from a distance for sport doesn't even put you in any danger - there's no real challenge, and it's just cowardly.

As a vegetarian, I am against killing non human animals. That said. If someone is in a survival situation, and needs to kill for food, I can accept it as long as they use not only the flesh, but every part of the animal they killed for something.

I was sitting outside the other day, minding my own when the leaves on the ground next to me startle to rustle slightly. A massive worm struggled out of this pile, covered in fire ants (Texas). I tried to help him out, to knock them off and set him loose. But they were latched all over his body, in primal attack mode, biting and clawing all over him including his face and worm anus. Then i thought about how we hunted stuff as nomadic tribes. And how we farm animals to be slaughtered now. How it is easier to eat animals the farther you get away from the process of their dying and being butchered. It is the same with people. We can be conditioned to kill each other, but innately we are extremely hesitant . Hunting has kept us alive. It keeps most social beings alive, including ants apparently. It comes down to, do you want to live more than you want to allow the animals in your vicinity to live? With our technology you would think that we could farm wheat-meat or similar and feed the entire nation -- but there is an entrenched industry. It takes time and economic pressure from citizens to change things.

I think it's wrong. Animals don't hunt for sport. Animals need to hunt to survive. I can survive perfectly fine without hunting, so why should i hunt?

I think if man wants to hunt deer, he should do it without a weapon. Its an unfair advantage to use a bullet to smash into a skull at a hundred yards. Not even a knife should be allowed. Any hunted animal, it should be survival of the fittest. no tools or weapons. of course Man would lose nearly all the time. If not all the time. thats why he uses a tool, a weapon so he wins. the same for killing cattle. if there were no slaughter houses, cattle could live the good life.

Yup, we hear this a lot from the leaf peepers and tourist types when passing through Vermont. Animals; deer, bear, turkeys, are wily enough and well equipped to avoid most human hunters, what nature hasn't given them they learn from repeated exposure. There are very few good hunters. There are lots of people with guns in the woods during hunting season. Please don't mistake one for the other. A hunter spends time researching and honing skills and usually takes game for table not trophy. People with guns kill game rarely, and when they do it's usually by luck or a miscue by the hunted. I agree there's room for interpretation over Sport vs. Hobby but the differentiation should not be based on the tools used by the parties. Game are worthy adversaries and we need some way to even the score. Obviously I hunt avidly for the table and usually take my limit. An issue I have is when people with guns wound a game animal and fail to finish the job, It's unconscionable to me to let an animal suffer, Alike, I disagree with trapping for the same reason, however for some, trapping is a living not a sport.

Yes, animals do hunt and are hunted but they are doing it for food. People who hunt are usually just doing it to be the "big man". It's pathetic really. They prey on defenceless animals. They are arseholes!

Mmm I have nothing against hunting for food. Hunting for food is a part of nature. Animals hunt, and are hunted for food. However, animals do not hunt for sport and hobbies. I am against hunting for sport and as a hobby because it is not necessary, and is fairly cruel. I think of it this way, if I were to kill someone out of self preservation, that would be more acceptable than me killing someone because I was bored and I find murder a fun sporting activity for the weekends.

Do you really need to hunt? or is the local seven-eleven closed? Ancient human hunting cultures like the San people in Africa hunt for food only. They also had very good understanding of conservation so they only took what they needed, when they needed it. This is more than can be said for the British Colonial invaders and others like them who have so badly raped Africa of its wildlife that there are many species now extinct. Sadly however, hunting has become a necissary evil. Antelope, elephants and other herbivores once migrated halfway across the continent but now thanks to human fences, they can't migrate and soon begin to overpopulate the areas in which they are confined, leading to the inevitable destruction of the eco-system. The only solution to this problem, besides breaking down fences from Egypt to South Africa, is culling: the more modern form of hunting.

I don't see anything wrong with hunting, as long as the person is going to use the entire animal and not just hang it on the wall and throw away the meat. Wild meats are some of the most nutritious meats that you can eat and have very low cholesterol. Also some of the biggest conservationist are hunters because they want to be able to keep hunting.

My husband and I have been meat hunters for many years. We ahve raised our own animals for meat, too. We feel it is responsible to take this upon ourselves and if we are going to eat meat, we will eat the healthiest, most humane meat, not commercially produced and raised who knows how. We greatly appreciate the fact that we are taking a life of an animal for our sustenance. I hate sport hunting and find it isn't even a sport. There is no competition or rules regulating the 'game'. It's simply an outdoor activity. Sport hunters after trophies are not my cup of tea. And they can't claim to be true meat hunters as those big antlers or long beard or whatever never give the best most edible carcass. Give me a reasonably sized animal that is on the tender and usable side.

I'm against hunting animals for the fun of it. If someone needed food, and had to resort to hunting to get his protein source, I would have no qualms about him hunting animals for food. But hunting animals purely for sport and to fulfill one's thrills is a waste of life. Animals may die ruthlessly in nature, but that's all in the cycle of nature. When they die at the frivolous hands of human beings, it's wrong.

well, let me first say that I am a vegetarian.I've been one for 10 years and I don't plan to start eating meat ever again. That being said I have to say: 1.I believe hunting an animal for sports is wrong. So I believe hunting animals that cannot be eaten is wrong. 2. But since a lot of meat from hunting is actually donated let's assume for a moment that the meat will be eaten. On that note I believe all people who eat meat should not be outraged by hunting. Hunting an animal in the wild is more humane than factory farming. Hunting aims at killing an animal quickly in the natural environment. Factory farming involves disgusting conditions (animals overcrowded,over-feeding chickens until their legs breake for example) so in my book anyone eating meat from factory farming and condemning hunting of animals when the animal is eventually eaten is a hypocrite. More on your questions, yes animals do hunt. However they don't hunt for sport. If we are only talking about hunting as a sport then tha comparison does not hold. If the hunted animal is eaten, you have my answer above.

I don't agree with hunting trophy animals. I have no problem with people who hunt that intend to eat what they have hunted. :)

It should be regulated so species dont become extinct and overpopulated.I think they should eat the meat.Not just for a trophy.Usually it tastes pretty good.

I have no issue with hunters. I find most of them are better environmentalist than most animal rights activists.

If the people are respectful of the life of the animal and its suffering, and use the animal fully for food, I don't have a technical problem with it. I just sort of wish people wouldn't want to. I'm a grocery-store meat eater and truly understand that I'm eating something that was killed for me, but I feel like there's a difference between someone who works at a slaughterhouse to feed his family and someone who decides to go out on weekends to kill something as an alternative to watching football. I'm more of a photography type, I suppose.

Animals who hunt don't have guns. Animals who hunt do not do so to feel macho. Animals who hunt do so for food only. Man who hunt are heartless and totally unnecessary. I would love to see men who hunt in the sights of someone else's barrel.

Hunting for food is fine... Hunting for sport is just a little bit sick, I mean killing isn't meant to befun (unless you are a sociopathic, sadistic serial killer)

Wow, a very well thought out and presented question on a sensitive subject! I'm going to put forth some personal viewpoints here which I'm SURE many are not going to like. But I have no fear of being DR'd anyway, so it doesn't bother me. Stand by, because this will be LONG! Hunting is done for two main purposes: sport or food. There are additional reasons associated with both. People may sport hunt for trophies, the challenge, the thrill of the chase, the excitement of the kill, and so forth. For food, people may hunt for survival, to suppliment their diet, because they like the taste of a particular animal, tradition, and so forth. Many hunters combine both purposes (sport and food) for many reasons. Personally, I hunt and fish for food and sport(combined). I do not keep fish I will not eat. With the exception of varmints or dangerous animals, I hunt what I will eat. There are some sporting activities I will not engage in. For example, I will not go on an organized "fox hunt" of the type where a caged fox is released before a pack of dogs and men on horseback. I do not consider this "sporting". In contrast, I would hunt a dangerous/rabid fox with all means at my disposal. Now, the part of the question which states "...in nature animals hunt and are hunted?" makes the question Matthew posted much more than merely another "Do you believe it is right to kill an animal" type of question. Matthew's way of phrasing his question forces us to consider our answers in terms of what nature is and what is natural as opposed to a strict human interpretation in what we believe to be purely human concepts of ethics and morality. Animals do not have a sense of ethics or morality in any way, shape, or form like humans do. In terms of nature and natural (as opposed to ethics and morality), let's start with some basic definitions: NATURE: The material world and its phenomena; essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. NATURAL: Present in or produced by nature; in accordance with nature, relating to or concerning nature. In the animal kingdom, it is widely recognized by most, if not all, people that there are predators and prey. Those who hunt other animals are deemed 'predators' while the subjects of the hunt are known as 'prey'. Most 'prey' are herbivores in nature and exist in large populations when compared to predators. Predators tend towards smaller populations. Omnivores fit in between. In the food chain, animals are typically organized top to bottom from the largest predators to the smallest prey. One could easily say this 'chain' is really more of a 'ring' if you follow it through. The bigger eat the smaller all the way down until you reach the tiniest, which ironically turn out to be eaters of everybody else, including the biggest (insects, bacteria, virus', etc.). So, in nature, all life is interdependent on all other life, at least to some extent. Those who can adapt to a wider range of environments are more wide spread and generally out live others who cannot. For example, if spring and summer seasons one decade produce plenty of foliage in one region, the rabbit population may explode. Shortly the predator population of fox follows because food is more plentiful. A couple years later, the wolf population in a neighboring arid region discover more food is available and move in. Now rabbits are culled back and the fox population, no longer able to feed such numbers, die back to something more sustainable to the new conditions. The example above, made up for this discussion, demonstrates a NATURAL cycle of animal behavior, consistent with the NATURE of the animals involved. Humans are also creatures of nature. I really do not understand why people consider some human behavior, or even humans themselves, as "unnatural". We have a nature and we act accordingly, therefore we are natural. The same laws which govern animal behavior also govern us. If our population explodes due to a surplus of food and other resources, that is only natural. If food and resources become scarce, our population dies off, also natural. The only difference is we are able to conceptually put things into perspectives that the rest of the animal population evidently cannot: a sense of 'fairness' or 'horror' at how 'unjust' it is that the people in <fill in the blank> are dying because their crops dried up this year. And before some of you go off on tangents making broad statements like: "Human Beings are the only species which <fill in the blank>" then STOP NOW! For most things you can cite, I could probably give you a specific example from the animal kingdom. Don't believe me? I've seen it written in several answers in this very post that "In nature animals hunt purely out of the need for food not for sport." Evidently these people have never seen a cat play with a mouse. I've had people tell me only humans enslave others. Again, I can cite a species of ant which actively hunts and enslaves other species to the benefit of the hive. Or how humans are the only species who abort unborn babies. Wrong again: many rodents are well known for their abilities to abort their unborn or even eat their newborn EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF PLENTIFUL FOOD. Brutal behavior of the strong over the weak (bullies, corporations, governments)? Happens all the time in nature. Bigger baby birds overpower younger, smaller siblings and push them out of the nest, killing them. Runts of the litter effectively killed off by their siblings because they cannot get enough food. Or how about only humans herd their prey? Nope. We have the ability to pen up animals at will but many predators 'herd' their prey to keep them in a group for hunting and feeding. Human beings, like it or not, are part of nature, not above it. We are interdependent on our environment and like our animal cousins if they suffer, we suffer. We differ ONLY in our abilities to conceptualize and quantify such things as time, consequence, right & wrong, ethics, morality, and non-material things. Probably a few other things, but you get the point. And this is, in fact, the very point many people opposed to hunting or killing animals make. They are correct. However, our so called "superior" characteristics do NOT elevate us above nature. I'll be perfectly clear here: as yet, the human population is NOT capable of defeating or destroying "nature". If we decimate the planetary food sources (plant and animal) we will die off. Just like a fox population dies off when its prey disappears. At some point the planet will reach a new balance and life will continue as defined by the new circumstances. Even if we were to wage full scale nuclear warfare and completely kill off the human population, guess what? Life will go on. Maybe only small critters like lizards, rodents, fish, bugs, and bacteria but it would go on. From Earth's viewpoint: "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt". Heck, the dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years, disappeared virtually overnight on a geological time scale, and yet the planet thrives. Ice ages have come and gone, whole contenents have moved across oceans, plant life had enough time to convert billions of tons of carbon into coal, sea life converted billions more tons of calcium and carbon into limestone. Our planet has changed far more drastically over that time period than it has the last 10,000 years. Compared to that, humans have hardly been around any time at all. So, what are my views again? I believe as a human it is my nature to hunt. However, I do it for different reasons than purely "survival" because as a human being my nature (which includes human concepts of morality, ethics, and so forth) allows me the option of choosing this path. For others, their nature may direct them down another path. 'nuff said.

I hunt. yes, iknow... im one of the only female, minor hunters. and i think that if God didn't want us to hunt animals then he wouldn't have made them outa meat:)

Animals hunt in nature because they don't have grocery stores. If you are going to eat it and not waste the animal and if you respect the balance of nature and aren't just blood thirsty by all means do what makes you happy; even if what makes you happy is heading into a defenseless unsuspecting animals habitat and killing it at your will, not out of necessity, but simply because you can.

Other species that hunt, have no choice to hunt and kill to survive. We as humans do. If we practice true ethics we refuse to take the life of another sentient being.

We have options, we are not wild animals hunting for survival. We have evolved as a species and at this stage in our evolutionary process hopefully have gained the wisdom of having compassion for other living creatures. I think hunting stinks, and mounting heads of innocent dear on walls for display is barbaric. Imagine what it would be like if you and your family went for a stroll in the woods to get some water or berries or whatever and suddenly there were men chasing after all of you with guns shooting at all of you...and imagine that it's because there are just too many of your kind and when you look back you see one of your children lying in a pool of blood but you have to keep running because you are defenseless. It's just immoral and inhumane. Some old world practices just don't go away, this is one that should.

This is a sensitive subject because unfortunately humanity as a whole has swung us into a vicious circle that rapes us and nature of our primitive part in the food chain. Meaning the minute we capitalized on slaughterhouses, and mass meat packing industries, breeding our own food, disrupting the natural flow of life, we excommunicated ourselves as being part of the natural order. So now if we hunt to eat and survive we are adding to an already existing problem of over consumption, but if we give into these corporations (which most non vegans do everyday) then there will be no way of ridding these industrious plagues on the world. Appreciate your place in the food chain, if you hunt use all parts as way our indian natives taught us, and dont buy additional meat from these corporations. DONT DO BOTH. thats not helping anything. Me personally, until i see the dust settle from everything we have taken advantage of, I will remain vegan, and I dont see the corporate dust settling anytime soon at least in my life time, but one can hope.

I am a vegan so I don't like the idea of killing animals, save for mercy. However, if one must eat meat, hunting is the lesser of two evils because the prey animal: (1) lived in free conditions its whole life (2) did not eat crops from farmland that could have been used to feed people directly (3) did not contribute to manure lagoons (4) did not consume antibiotics and thereby strengthen the resistance of bacteria. Hunting for meat is the lesser of two evils. However, hunting palpably makes my life less enjoyable because I like to hike without worrying about stray bullets. People in a developed country, and all of its abundance of food, can't be compared with wild animals.

It is wrong when done for sport. I get so upset when someone tells me that deer are over populated when it is we humans who are!

I havent been hunting in years. But its the same as eating meat.

Animals hunt out of necessity. Humans however hunt out of choice. That's the only difference.

Unless one is a strict vegan, or a vegitarian who eats no meat, poultry, or fish, one is participating in the violent deaths of animals. As omniverous animals we typically like eating meat. It's just a fact. Keep in mind that most hunters prefer the quickest, most sudden death possible for our game. There are lot of reasons for this, and being humane is a major one. The same cannot be said for slaughter houses. Pigs and cattle are killed in a slow and painful process that involves taking stunning blows to the head and having jugulars cut to bleed the animal to death. This is not a happy process. Yet many of you will eat your burgers, hotdogs, or porkchops blissfully ignorant of the pain that animal went through, and you have the gaul to knock a hunter for putting a deer down in mere seconds with a well placed bullet to the heart.

Well I think game ducks (or other hunted animals) are for eating. So it can be for sport and for food at the same time. But I think if wolves had thumbs and guns then we would be the hunted

Its the method and reason which differ to make man the weakest of all species when hunting with his use of a gun with scope that even a child can use ... Like the animal ... if man was to hunt with bare hands or at most with a knife ... then you can make the comparison ... Most men are way to chicken Sh*t to hunt without the gun ... If other men were to hunt the hunter with the same method and reason ... the hunter would squeel like a little girl in a schoolyard ... It takes no strength or bravado to hunt with a gun dressed in camo ... 'anyone' can do it ... the advantage of the weakest ... le chasseur qui chasse avec une arme à feu, n'a pas de couilles. Bang! Bang! little duck, I am the brave ... Ha! :)))